IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6136/2016(MV) BETWEEN:
K V SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE SRI.VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 2ND FLOOR, YELLAPPAREDDY LAYOUT, OPP. TO CANARA BANK, NEAR KIRAN WATER, KAMMASANDRA, ELECTRONIC CITY, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE – 560 100 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAVINDRA M R, ADV.) AND:
1. THE HEAD MASTER YAGNAVALKYA PUBLIC SCHOOL, R/AT BHEEMANA BANDE VILLAGE, MASKAL POST, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 144 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) 2. DADAPEER H S/O HONNIURSAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE, BEARING NO.KA-15-5236 R/AT HOSAYELANADU VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 144 3. SRI. RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, (POLICY NO.10003/ 31/14/704273) (CODE:7688059) E-8, EPIR, RIICO, SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN – 302 022 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R RANGANATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; SRI.O.MAHESH, ADV. FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.4543/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, & XX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation and a prayer has been made for modifying the judgment and award passed in MVC No.4543/2015 by the MACT, Bangalore.
2. The appellant met with an accident and suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 7.1.2015. When the claimant was waiting for the bus at the bus stand, in Kundalagura village to reach Hiriyur, , the driver of the school van came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant – petitioner and the claimant has sustained fracture to his right leg and immediately he was shifted to Hiriyur Government Hospital for first aid, later taken to Dr. K. Narasimhaiah Hospital at Tumkur for further treatment. He was inpatient for about 20 days and taken regular treatment as out patient. Since his bones are not reunited, he is unable to get back his employment due to pain. As a result, he lost his employment and he could not do any work.
3. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has failed to take income of the injured at Rs.12,650/- p.m. The claimant was working for Express Cargo Movers, Bengaluru and they have issued salary certificate dated 30.09.2015 to the effect that the claimant was earning Rs.12,650/- p.m. and he has been issued with appointment letter dated 03.06.2012.
4. The claimant gave a complaint to the Abbinahole Police station who registered a case in crime No.4/2015 against the driver of the Van and charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of IPC. The doctor – PW-3 has been examined and he has assessed disability of the injured at 33.9% to the right leg and assessed 17% disability to the whole body. In respect of disability at 17%, the Tribunal restricted the same to 11.3% disability. Further it contended that, the injured has spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses and he has produced medical bills to that effect. However, the Tribunal disbelieving the same has not awarded entire medical expenses but restricted to grant Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The evidence of the doctor shows that there is 17% disability to the whole body and as per the wound certificate the claimant has sustained fracture of right tibia shows partial union with implants in situ, fracture of right fibula shows partial union. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards attendant, food and nourishment expenses and conveyance charges and no compensation is awarded under the head loss of future income and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and disability. It is submitted that Tribunal has deducted Rs.1,00,000/- even though the medical bills are produced for more than Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to support the order passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the medical expenses of Rs.2,50,000/- has been disbelieved by the tribunal as the tribunal has entertained doubt towards medical bills on the ground how a patient can take treatment in two hospitals at the same time and at the same date which is disclosed in the medical bills. Hence, the Tribunal is right in dis-believing the medical bills and awarding only Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also submitted that injury sustained by the appellant does not result in reduction of future income. Hence, the appellant has not been awarded any compensation under the head future loss of income.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and I have perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. It is seen the nature of injuries as deposed by the doctor in Dr.K.Narasimhaiah hospital shows that injured was admitted as in-patient for 20 days and 10 days. The production of relevant documents does not preclude the Tribunal to calculate just and proper compensation. It is seen that the claimant was in-patient for 30 days and 20 days. Under the circumstances, the compensation awarded at Rs.20,000/- is on the lower side. Hence, another sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has doubted the medical bills as to how the patient can take the treatment simultaneously in two hospitals. This itself will not deprive the claimant for award of medical expenses. I find the entire observation made by the Tribunal is false. Expressing a doubt sometimes would deprive in awarding just and proper compensation. Be that as it may, to meet the ends of justice, another sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses in addition to Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Another sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards attendant expenses, food and nourishments. Another Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and discomfort. The only area which is not attended by the Tribunal is compensation under the head loss of future income. For the purpose of assessing loss of future income, the disability is to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal has assessed disability at 11.3%. For the purpose of calculation it has to be 12% as per Exhibit P16. The evidence of PW2 shows that the injured was getting Rs.12,650/- as income. 12% of Rs.12650/- is 1518. Hence, the appellant-claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,63,944/- (1518x12x9) in all the appellants is entitled for Rs.5,11,944/- as against Rs. 1,93,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant is entitled to interest on the enhanced amount as awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, the enhanced amount shall be kept in F.D in any nationalized bank for a period of five years.
Sd/- JUDGE NM